Women’s Attitude toward Contraception Depending on the History of Induced Abortion

Introduction: The birth rate crisis in most regions of the Russian Federation gives relevance to the tasks of assessing contraceptive behavior and citizens’ attitudes toward contraception, and of searching for effective means of their correction.

 Objective: To establish the factors associated with the attitude toward contraception among women living in the Arkhangelsk Region, including those with a history of induced abortion.

Materials and Methods: We conducted a questionnaire-based survey of 629 women aged 18–35, of which 130 (20.7 %) reported having induced abortions in their medical history. A validated version of the Kyes (1998) Contraceptive Attitude Scale was used as a measuring tool of the normalized contraceptive attitude score. We then applied a multiple binary logistic regression analysis to establish the factors associated with a positive (> 60 points) attitude of women to contraception given their history of induced abortion.

Results: The median normalized contraceptive attitude score was 65.6 (53.1; 77.3) points in the group of women with the history of induced abortion and 72.0 (59.4; 82.0) in those without it. Given the history of abortion, the positive attitude toward contraception was associated with a higher level of education, having children in the family, planning to have the first (or subsequent) child, and having multiple sexual partners in the past. Contraceptive use, including that under the influence of a sexual partner, was associated with a more negative attitude toward contraception.

 Conclusions: Demographic characteristics and parameters of social status, reproductive attitudes, sexual and contraceptive behavior associated with the attitude of women of reproductive age toward contraception should be taken into account when developing regional programs for improving reproductive attitudes and increasing the birth rate.

1. Kalachikova ON, Korolenko AV, Bobrova AG. Demographic development of Russia and Belarus in the 21st century in the context of the introduction of the active longevity concept. Problemy Razvitiya Territorii. 2021;25(1):29-51. (In Russ.) doi: 10.15838/ptd.2021.1.111.2

2. Shcherbakova EM. Population dynamics in Russia in the context of global trends. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2022;33(4):409-421. doi: 10.1134/s1075700722040098

3. Ildarkhanova ChI, Ibragimova AA, Abdulzyanov AR. Dynamics of the natural movement of the population as a threat to the demographic security of Russia. Narodonaselenie. 2022;25(3):4-17. (In Russ.) doi: 10.19181/population.2022.25.3.1

4. Yerugina MV, Krom IL, Sazanova GYu, et al. The population of the Russian Federation’s trends in demographic indicators. Sovremennye Problemy Zdravookhraneniya i Meditsinskoy Statistiki. 2023;(1):79-88. (In Russ.) doi: 10.24412/2312-2935-2023-1-79-88

5. Thomas RK. Concepts, Methods and Practical Applications in Applied Demography. Springer Int Publ.; 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-65439-3

6. Gareeva IA. Social conditioning of reproductive behavior of the population. Vlast’ i Upravlenie na Vostoke Rossii. 2023;(1(102)):101-110. (In Russ.) doi: 10.22394/1818-4049-2023-102-1-101-110

7. Baranov AV, Mordovsky EA, Sannikov AL, et al. The dynamics of demographic situation and state of reproductive health of population of circumpolar region of the Russian Federation. Problemy Sotsial’noy Gigieny, Zdravookhraneniya i Istorii Meditsiny. 2023;31(5):1003-1010. (In Russ.) doi: 10.32687/0869-866X-2023-31-5-1003-1010

8. Gudkova TB. Fertility intentions in Russia: Motivation and constraints. Demographic Review. 2019;6(4):83-103. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17323/demreview.v6i4.10428

9. Petrova NG, Zimina VG. Reproductive settings of the population and factors affecting them. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Meditsina. 2024;19(1):45-53. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21638/spbu11.2024.104

10. Gruskin S, Zacharias K, Jardell W, Ferguson L, Khosla R. Inclusion of human rights in sexual and reproductive health programming: Facilitators and barriers to implementation. Glob Public Health. 2021;16(10):1559-1575. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2020.1828986

11. Sharypova SYu. Behavioral factors of reproductive health in Russians. Zdorov’e Naseleniya i Sreda Obitaniya. 2024;32(11):24-31. (In Russ.) doi: 10.35627/2219-5238/2024-32-11-24-31

12. Anholt RRH, O’Grady P, Wolfner MF, Harbison ST. Evolution of reproductive behavior. Genetics. 2020;214(1): 49-73. doi: 10.1534/genetics.119.302263

13. Gevorkyan MA, Manukhin IB, Manukhina EI, Tikhomirov AL, Karakashyan NR. An innovative approach to choosing a hormonal contraceptive. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2016;(11):143-147. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18565/aig.2016.11.143-7

14. Rostovskaya TK, Zolotareva OA. Assessment of the demographic policy measures importance in the field of fertility: Opinions of men and women in Russia (based on a sociological research). Zhenshchina v Rossiyskom Obshchestve. 2021;(3):47-52. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21064/WinRS.2021.3.4

15. Barbaruk YuV. Reproductive behavior and reproductive attitudes of women of middle and late childbearing age in the Far North (on the example of the Magadan Oblast). Arktika i Sever. 2024;(56):146-161. (In Russ.) doi: 10.37482/issn2221-2698.2024.56.146

16. Armashevskaya OV, Sokolovskaya TA, Senenko ASh. The current priorities of contraceptive behavior in Russian able-bodied women (according to a sampling study). Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2021;(1):164-169. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18565/aig.2021.1.164-169

17. Balakrishnan P, Kroiss C, Keskes T, Friedrich B. Perception and use of reversible contraceptive methods in Germany: A social listening analysis. Womens Health (Lond). 2023;19:17455057221147390. doi: 10.1177/17455057221147390

18. Pannain GD, Brum VOR, Abreu MMA, Lima GB. Epidemiological survey on the perception of adverse effects in women using contraceptive methods in Brazil. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(1):25-31. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1741410

19. Palma F, Costa AR, Neves J, et al. Perception of oral contraception – do women think differently from gynaecologists? Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2023;28(2):125-131. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2023.2185482

20. Moreau C, Bouyer J, Goulard H, Bajos N. The remaining barriers to the use of emergency contraception: Perception of pregnancy risk by women undergoing induced abortions. Contraception. 2005;71(3):202-207. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2004.09.004

21. Yee LM, Simon MA. The role of health literacy and numeracy in contraceptive decision-making for urban Chicago women. J Community Health. 2014;39(2):394-399. doi: 10.1007/s10900-013-9777-7

22. Kilfoyle KA, Vitko M, O’Conor R, Bailey SC. Health literacy and women’s reproductive health: A systematic review. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2016;25(12):1237-1255. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.5810

23. Mordovsky EA, Sannikov AL, Baranov AV, et al. The competence in health issues of population of circum-polar region of the Russian Federation. Problemy Sotsial’noy Gigieny, Zdravookhraneniya i Istorii Meditsiny. 2022;30(6):1295-1301. (In Russ.) doi: 10.32687/0869-866X-2022-30-6-1295-1301

24. Laar AS, Harris ML, Thomson C, Loxton D. Perspectives on barriers to traditional sources of sexual and reproductive health information and services: Are mHealth technologies the answer? Health Promot Perspect. 2024;14(3):258-267. doi: 10.34172/hpp.42607

25. Blanc Molina A, Rojas Tejada AJ. Uso del preservativo, número de parejas y debut sexual en jóvenes en coito vaginal, sexo oral y sexo anal [Condom use, number of partners and sexual debut in young people in penile-vaginal intercourse, oral sex and anal sex]. Rev Int Androl. 2018;16(1):8-14. doi: 10.1016/j.androl.2017.02.009

26. Křepelka P, Fait T, Urbánková I, Hanáček J, Krofta L, Dvořák V. Risky sexual behaviour and contraceptive use among young women in the Czech Republic. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2020;28(1):3-12. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a5823

27. Norton A, Tappis H. Sexual and reproductive health implementation research in humanitarian contexts: A scoping review. Reprod Health. 2024;21(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12978-024-01793-2